MAN INJURED ON WAY TO WORK

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23882, 26 February 1943, Page 6

MAN INJURED ON WAY TO WORK

COMPENSATION CLAIM DECISION “PRINCIPLE OF GREAT IMPORTANCE” “The amount in issue in this case is small, but the principle involved is of great practical importance,” said Mr Justice O’Rogan in a reserved judgment dealing with a claim in the Compensation Court for compensation by a waterside worker who was injured while cycling to a wharf to answer a call to work an extra shift. His Honour, after a survey of the law, found that the man was entitled to compensation because he was going to work under a special contract of aervice.

The plaintiff was Francis McEnaney, a Greymouth waterside worker, who completed a day’s work at 5 p.m. and went home. As he was having his evening meal a fellow worker telephoned to say that he was speaking on behalf of the waterfront controller, and that the night shift was a man short. He asked McEnaney to fill the breach. As soon as he had finished his meal McEnaney set out on' his bicycle, taking the shortest route to the wharf. Several hundred yards from his destination ■he collided-with another cyclist, receiving injuries which prevented him from working for a fortnight. He accordingly claimed against the Union Steam Ship Company. For the company, Mr J. W. Hannan maintained that the case was covered by a recent decision by the Court of Appeal on a case stated by Mr Justice O’Regan. For the defence, Mr W. D. Taylor contended that the case was different, because McEnaney was going to work in response to a call. He quoted a decision of the House of Lords. In this case the House of Lords held that compensation was payable to the wife of a platelayer, who was killed while on his way to answer an urgent call. Mr Justice O’Regan supported Mr Taylor’s view, because there was a special duty on the part of McEnaney to obey an emergency call, because he was paid from the time he left his house, and because he was under an obligation to go with reasonable dispatch by the shortest route. In the House of Lords case one of the Lords of Appeal said: “Supposing a superior officer happened to see the workman loitering on his way or diverging from the proper route. Could not the officer properly have ordered the workman to proceed direct to the place to which re has been called?”

Mr Justice O’Regan found that it was not the ordinary case of a man going to his employment, but that there was a contract of service directly McEnaney agreed to return to the ship. That he was not a permanent employee was irrelevant.